薪資所得扣繳稅額

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Absent annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-authoritative nature ('僅供參考', not official advice), the rate rules, and the '未達起扣標準免扣' condition for bonus. This provides useful behavioral context beyond raw computation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact two sentences: the first covers the core functionality and rates, the second adds the legal disclaimer. Every clause adds meaningful information with no redundancy or filler. Ideal front-loading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 types, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key usage scenarios and rate rules. The schema handles individual parameter descriptions. The lack of output schema means return format is not detailed, but that is acceptable per guidelines. Minor gaps: no mention of year range or dependents' effect, but those are in schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining the rate formulas (e.g., 5% for bonus, 18%/6% for non-resident based on wage threshold) and the withholding threshold, which are not present in the schema's parameter descriptions. This enrichment justifies a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it calculates income tax withholding for salary, listing three distinct types (resident formula, resident bonus at 5%, non-resident at 18% or 6%). This specificity and differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., payroll, premium calculations) makes the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly guides usage by enumerating the three scenarios (resident, resident bonus, non-resident), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the type parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.